HE Taught Award Regulations: Part B
Section:
Version:
Author:
Introduction:
Review:
3: Academic Malpractice Procedure
1.5.1
Scott Smith
December 2013
December 2017
REVISION HISTORY
Ver
Date
Author
Description
1.0
January 2014
Peter Greenall
Initial Approval of Academic Malpractice
1.1
March 2015
Scott Smith
Update to clarify panel membership
1.2
March 2016
Scott Smith
1.3
Sept 2015
Scott Smith
1.4
July 2016
Scott Smith
Amendment to titles and names
1.5
December
2016
Scott Smith
Relocation of penalties from Part A to B3
1.5.1
February 2017
Scott Smith
Statements added relating to CMI:
 An individual’s right to report malpractice
 A requirement to inform CMI of malpractice
Date Approved
Comments
Addition of a reference to UoS students and the
University’s regulations
Addition of panel document requirements. Further
guidance for cases of cheating with an additional review
stage being added prior to a panel being convened.
APPROVAL
Ver
Committee
1.0
HE Academic
Board
Page 2 of 13
CONTENTS
Contents ................................................................................................................................ 3
B3 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4
B3.1 Detecting Cheating or Fabrication of Results ............................................................. 4
B3.2 Detecting Plagiarism .................................................................................................. 4
B3.3 Process for suspected plagiarism .............................................................................. 5
B3.3.1 plagiarism ........................................................................................................... 5
B3.3.2 MINOR OFFENCE (Poor Academic Practice) .................................................... 5
B3.3.3 MAJOR OFFENCE ............................................................................................. 5
B3.3.4 Operational Practice ........................................................................................... 5
B3.4 Process for Suspected Cheating and Fabrication ...................................................... 7
B3.4.1 Individual Responsibility (Chartered Management Institute) ............................... 8
B3.5 Academic Malpractice Panel ...................................................................................... 8
B3.5.1 Documentation Available to the Panel ................................................................ 8
B3.5.2 External Reporting .............................................................................................. 9
B3.6 Penalties .................................................................................................................... 9
B3.7 The Panel Letter ...................................................................................................... 10
B3.8 Appeal ...................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix B3 - A – Poor Academic Practice Warning Letter ................................................ 13
Page 3 of 13
B3 INTRODUCTION
This section of the regulations does not relate to the delivery of the University of Salford or
Liverpool John Moores University degrees, you may access their regulations here:

http://www.governance.salford.ac.uk/page/academic_handbook

https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/public-information/academic-quality-and-regulations
B3: Academic Malpractice has been produced following consideration of the Quality
Assurance Agency’s UK Quality Code.
Blackpool and The Fylde College unequivocally condemns academic malpractice including
acts of cheating and plagiarism.
This malpractice is any behaviour that gives an unfair advantage to a particular student. It
can usefully be divided into three sub categories: cheating, fabrication of results and
plagiarism.
It is an academic offence for a candidate to commit any act designed to obtain an unfair
advantage with a view to achieving a higher grade or mark than they would otherwise
secure. Any attempt to convey deceitfully the impression of acquired knowledge, skills,
understanding, or credentials, is a serious offence and may constitute grounds for sanctions
up to exclusion.
B3.1 DETECTING CHEATING OR FABRICATION OF RESULTS
All members of the College’s Staff or representatives thereof are responsible for reporting
to the Student Administration Manager any instance where cheating or fabrication of results
may be identified as having occurred. The Student Administration Manager will convene an
Academic Malpractice Panel (AMP) and for all other cases, after consultation with the HE
Academic Registrar will convene an AMP where the HE Academic Registrar believes there
is a case to be answered.
B3.2 DETECTING PLAGIARISM
The primary responsibility for detecting plagiarism in student work continues to rest with the
individual marker, who should be alert to the possibility of finding plagiarism in students’
work, and who must always use their specialist knowledge and academic judgement in
deciding what is and what is not acceptable within that subject. For example, in many
subjects it is difficult to decide what common knowledge is and what should be attributed to
sources, which is where the marker’s expert judgement is exercised.
The College also makes use of plagiarism detection software. To ensure impartially all HE
students must, wherever possible, submit assessed work electronically to tutors. This
software is only employed to assist markers in making decisions; markers will always use
Page 4 of 13
their specialist knowledge and academic judgement to determine whether plagiarism is
evident.
The dissertations of all third year degree students will all be subject to the plagiarism
detection software in order to assist markers with their judgement.
B3.3 PROCESS FOR SUSPECTED PLAGIARISM
B3.3.1 PLAGIARISM
Plagiarism can be defined as: the action of utilising or closely imitating the language / work
of another author without consent as if the product were one's own. Blackpool and The
Fylde College Academic Regulations categorise any such behaviour into one of the two
types below.
A clear distinction must be drawn between inexperienced academic study and writing skills
(especially among first year undergraduates and international students) and wilful
deception. The former requires remedial teaching and only the latter deserves severe
penalties. Intentionality is difficult to establish, so the framework allows a first offence based
on “benefit of doubt”, with a relatively light penalty and a requirement that the student seeks
appropriate study skills advice. Subsequent plagiarism offences are more likely to be
deliberate, so the penalty system becomes progressively more serious.
Ignorance of proper procedures or of good practice in academic writing is no excuse,
particularly if a student has previously been accused of plagiarism or poor academic
practice, advised to seek study skills help, and fails to learn the lessons.
B3.3.2 MINOR OFFENCE (Poor Academic Practice)
Minor offences would include poor referencing, unattributed quotations, inappropriate
paraphrasing, incorrect or incomplete citations, or up to several sentences of direct copying
without acknowledgement of the source. For classification of a minor offence it must be the
marker’s judgement that the affected text results from poor academic practice rather than a
deliberate intent to deceive
B3.3.3 MAJOR OFFENCE
A major offence shall be defined as copying multiple paragraphs in full without
acknowledgement of the source, taking essays from the Internet without revealing the
source, copying all or much of the work of a fellow student with or without his/her
knowledge or consent, submitting the same piece of work for assessment under multiple
modules.
B3.3.4 OPERATIONAL PRACTICE
All markers shall make a positive effort to identify possible plagiarism using their specialist
knowledge, academic judgement and available software tools.
Page 5 of 13
All markers shall inform their students of the procedures for detecting and dealing with
plagiarism, the process and implications of not applying good academic practice will be
reinforced throughout a student’s tutorial sessions.
Where a piece of assessed work in the academic judgment of a marker is subject to poor
academic practice, at level 3 or 4 only, the marker must consult with both the relevant
programme leader and curriculum manager (or head of curriculum area where the maker is
either of aforementioned people) to consider the appropriate action. If all parties are in
agreement and believe that the student has committed an offence that is considered a
Minor Offence they must:


Contact the Student Administration Manager to confirm that a prior warning letter has
not been issued to the student.
Meet with the student (module tutor and programme leader) to discuss the poor
academic practice and the support mechanisms that will be put in place by the
academic team and HE Learning Mentors to assist the student.
If no letter has been issued and the student is content to accept a warning

The programme team will complete the warning letter (Appendix B3 - C) and provide
it to the Student Administration Manager who will issue the letter to the student by
recorded delivery and note the incident on the student’s record.
If a previous warning letter has been issued or the student is unwilling to accept a warning,
the procedure set out below will be initiated.
In cases of suspected plagiarism the following must be adhered to:




A Plagiarism Report Form (link to SharePoint) is to be completed by the marker
Included with the report should be the student’s annotated work identifying which
elements are deemed to be plagiarised
The source of original information must be identified.
All documentation must be presented to a second marker for ratification
Evidence must always be provided by the marker to confirm plagiarism has occurred.
If the second marker disagrees with the findings of the marker the HE Academic Registrar
will act as an adjudicator and will make a judgement on whether to continue or to close the
investigation.
If the judgement is confirmed as being one of suspected plagiarism, the annotated material
and the Plagiarism Report should be forwarded to the Student Administration Manager who
will send to the student a copy of the assessed work with the feedback from the first and
second marker (Plagiarism Report) and a copy of the software plagiarism report. Copies of
all documents must be kept by Student Administration Manager and forwarded to the head
of curriculum area. The Student Administration Manager will convene an academic
malpractice panel. The panel will receive copies of the plagiarised work and a copy of the
Page 6 of 13
first and second marker reports and the software plagiarism report. They will also receive
evidence as to whether the student has attended a session regarding plagiarism.
Note: If the head of curriculum is also the marker or second marker then a nominee must
be appointed.
The timing of the panel will be arranged to try to ensure the student can attend. The student
may be accompanied by a friend or relative, any person accompanying a student is present
to support a student and as such should not contribute to the meeting unless at the behest
of the student and only when invited to do so by the Chair. The student may write a letter to
outline their position regarding the allegations if they wish. If the student does not attend the
panel at the agreed time and date, the panel will convene and make their decision based
solely on the documentary evidence available.
A short meeting will take place before the panel meeting with panel members only to
familiarise members with the case. At the panel meeting the chair may request that the
marker present the evidence to the panel or it may be provided as documentary evidence
only. In either case the student will be present to hear or review the evidence from the
marker. The student will then be asked to present their case to the panel.
Once the panel has heard the evidence and asked for any further questions of clarification
the marker, the student and anyone accompanying them will be asked to leave the meeting.
The panel will then discuss the case and use the awarding body regulations guidelines for
plagiarism to inform their discussions and decisions. Normally, the student will be advised
of the panel decision verbally by the Chair on the day. The student will be informed in
writing of the decision and if appropriate, the penalty within three working days by the
Student Administration Manager. In complex situations the decision of the panel may be
delayed, however the Student Administration Manager will ensure that the student is
informed at each stage.
The Student Administration Manager (normally through the Programme Leader) will provide
the outcomes of any plagiarism panels to the relevant Board of Examiners.
B3.4 PROCESS FOR SUSPECTED CHEATING AND FABRICATION
All staff are responsible for reporting cases of suspected cheating or fabrication. Where
member of staff suspects such an incident they must complete the Academic Malpractice
Report (link to SharePoint) and provide it to the Student Administration Manager within,
wherever possible, 24 hours. The Student Administration Manager will in turn arrange for
the HE Academic Registrar to review the report. If the HE Academic Registrar agrees that
there is a case to answer the Student Administration Manager will convene an Academic
Malpractice Panel and inform the student of their right to attend, supplying them with the
appropriate documentation.
Page 7 of 13
B3.4.1 INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY (CHARTERED MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE)
Under the Chartered Management Institute’s Whistleblowing Policy, it is the right of any
individual, where they feel it appropriate, to report directly any instance of suspected
malpractice to the professional body.
B3.5 ACADEMIC MALPRACTICE PANEL
The panel will consist of:





From another curriculum area, an independent head of curriculum as chair
The Head of Higher Education or Director of Quality and Standards or nominee
An academic colleague from same curriculum area unrelated to the assessment or
second marker
The member of staff asserting malpractice or Achievements Officer where
appropriate.
Student Administration Manager to minute the meeting and maintain records of all
decisions and outcomes.
B3.5.1 DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE TO THE PANEL
For instances of plagiarism, the Student Administration Manager is responsible for, in most
cases through the academic team, providing the following documentation to the academic
malpractice panel:







The assessment brief(s) in question.
The students submission(s) (annotated)
The Plagiarism Report Form (completed by both first and second marker)
The TurnItIn report
The Students EBS stage report (Student Assessment Details)
Evidence as to whether the student has attended a session regarding plagiarism and
whether a warning letter have previously been issued.
The student’s attendance record.
For all other instances of malpractice the panel will be provided with:

The Academic Malpractice Report Form
In both instances, additional documentation deemed relevant to the circumstance maybe
submitted by the member of staff asserting malpractice or by the student in question where
either party believes it may assist the panel in their deliberations. All documentation must
be provided to the Student Administration Manager for distribution to all parties prior to the
meeting.
Page 8 of 13
B3.5.2 EXTERNAL REPORTING
Where it is the policy of an accrediting professional body and where a suspected case of
malpractice is identified, the Student Administration Manager, on receipt of an academic
malpractice report, will inform the relevant body. Accrediting bodies requiring to be informed
of malpractice are listed below.
Accrediting Body
Contact details
Procedure
Chartered
Management
Institute’s
http://www.managers.org.uk/
contact-us/contact-useducation-providers
https://www.managers.org.uk/~/media/Angela-MediaLibrary/New%20EP/PolicesProcedures/Procedures/C
MI%20malpractice%20and%20maladministration%20
procedure.pdf
B3.6 PENALTIES
The Academic Malpractice Panel will consider all suspected cases of academic malpractice
and has the following actions available to it:

If it is determined that there has been no offence, then the academic marker shall be
instructed to mark the work in question normally.

If it is determined that there is satisfactory evidence that an offence has been
committed one of the following must be considered.
i.
Advisory letter issued (level 4 only)
ii.
Where a student will still meet the minimum pass mark, exclude any work
within the submission identified as being subject to academic malpractice
practice and consider the remaining work without penalisation.
iii.
Award zero or equivalent for the assessment in question and permit its
reassessment, restricted to the minimum pass mark. The module in such
cases will not be capped.
iv.
Award zero or equivalent for the assessment in question and permit its
reassessment. The module in such cases will be capped.
v.
Award zero or equivalent for the assessment in question, permit its
reassessment and restrict all modules at the same level to the minimum pass
mark.
vi.
Refer to the College’s Stage 3 Disciplinary Panel.
The penalties above become progressively more punitive and will be applied by panels with
consideration of:


any academic writing support a student has received
a student’s level of study
Page 9 of 13



whether there have been any previous instances (including warnings for poor
academic practice)
the category concerned i.e. cheating, fabrication of results or plagiarism
the scope of the offence.
Where a student is deemed to have committed an offence the Student Administration
Manger will send the student the appropriate warning letter confirming the decision and
advising the student of the consequences of any further offence.
B3.7 THE PANEL LETTER
For each offence the Academic Misconduct Panel will send the student a formal letter which




identifies what they have done wrong, and why it is wrong
points them towards appropriate sources of study skills help
reminds them of the need to discuss their work with academic staff if they are
uncertain about how to avoid subsequent allegations
warns of the serious consequences of subsequent offences, and spells out the
sanctions that will be applied
B3.8 APPEAL
Where a student has been found guilty of malpractice and is dissatisfied with the findings of
an Academic Malpractice Panel they have the right to, under the regulations set out in B9
Academic Appeals, appeal the decision.
Page 10 of 13
Appendix B3 – A – Academic Malpractice Procedure Flowchart
B3: Academic Malpractice
Cheating /Fabrication
Suspected
Plagiarism
Suspected
Report created by
invigilator and sent
to Student
Administration
Manager (SAM)
Student’s work is
annotated to
identify the material
and source
Report reviewed by
HE Academic
Registrar
Student’s work is
second marked and
a report is created
Do marker and
second marker
agree?
No
Adjudication by the
HE Academic
Registrar
Yes
Does HE Academic
Registrar agree?
Yes
Has plagiarism
been identified?
No
SAM informed and
sends reports to
student
Yes
Academic
Malpractice
Panel
convened by
SAM
SAM informs
student that there
is no case to
answer.
No
No case to answer
Student informed by first
marker
Guilty?
Yes
SAM advises
student of outcome
(In the case of
censure)
Board of Examiners
applies penalty
Potential appeal
Process Complete
Page 11 of 13
Appendix B3 - B – Terms of Reference Academic Malpractice Panel
Terms of Reference Academic Malpractice Panel
Chair
Membership

Independent Head of Curriculum

Director of HE or Quality and Standards (or nominee)

Member of staff asserting malpractice or Achievements Officer where
appropriate.

Academic member of staff (from the same curriculum area but unrelated
to the assessment)
Minuting
HE Student Administration Manager
Frequency
As required
The Academic Malpractice Panel exists as an impartial body to judge cases
of alleged academic malpractice, based upon the evidence brought before it.
Summary of purpose
Terms of Reference
Date of last review
The Academic Malpractice Panel will only make a decision on the
malpractice itself and not take account of any other factors. Boards of
Examiners will make the ultimate decision on the student’s progression or
award, failure and reassessment.

To consider the evidence as presented.

To interview the student and appropriate employees as necessary.

To review the process taken in the identification, investigation and
awarding of the penalty.

To review the record of penalties applied to ensure the penalty
applied is consistent.

Where it is determined that the process of investigation, decision
taken or penalty imposed is not in accordance with the College
regulations.
July 2016
Page 12 of 13
Appendix B3 - A – Poor Academic Practice Warning Letter
Ref:
Date:
Strictly Private and Confidential
Dear [student name],
Re: Warning of poor academic practice
I am writing to you regarding an assessment submission made by yourself on [submission
date] for assessment [number] of [module name].
Following your meeting with the module tutor [tutor name] and myself [programme leader
name], it has been decided that a formal warning letter should be issued to you to meet the
requirements of the College’s regulations.
Poor academic practice will almost certainly negatively influence your degree classification
and perhaps even influence whether you pass your degree. It should therefore not be
treated lightly. Any further instances would potentially be considered as plagiarism resulting
in an investigation and possible exclusion from College.
Although this is a formal warning and will be retained on your College record it will not in
any way influence any academic decisions made by a board of examiners and will only be
referred to if another such case should arise. Your transcript will not include any reference
to this incident.
The programme team are here to support your progress and are able to provide additional
assistance, I would highly recommend that you engage with this support. The College also
has support available through the HE Learning Mentors who can be contacted on email:
[email protected] or telephone: 01253 504494.
If you have any queries regarding this letter or wish to discuss the matter further please
contact your Head of Curriculum [name].
Yours sincerely
Programme Leader
Page 13 of 13